Stephen Dunne, 30, flunked the Massachusetts bar exam and now says it was because he refused on principle to answer an exam question concerning the rights of two married lesbians, their children and property. He claims the hypothetical, which concludes with the question “What are the rights of Mary and Jane?”, violated his First Amendment rights and served as a “screening device” to exclude persons like himself who disapprove on religious grounds of the state’s gay marriage law. “But Boston attorney Tom Dacey doesn’t believe the case will go very far. … ‘Lawyers have to answer questions about legal principles they disagree with all the time, and that doesn’t mean we’re endorsing them,’ said Dacey, a director of Goulston & Storrs’ litigation group. ‘You might be somebody who is morally opposed to divorce, but have to interpret the divorce laws of the commonwealth to answer a question about who property is passed to.'” (Donna Goodison, “Bar-exam flunker sues: Wannabe rejects gay-wed question, law”, Boston Herald, Jul. 6 and sidebar; AP/TheBostonChannel.com, Jul. 6).
P.S. He wants $9.75 million. And On Point News has a copy of the complaint (PDF). Update: Now he wants less, reports Above the Law (Jul. 13).
8 Comments
There is something amusingly quixotic about this guy suing a bunch of lawyers.
Lawyers with principles? Who’s gonna buy that?
“scoring 268.866 on the exam, just shy of the 270 passing grade”
I’m going to take a wild leap of faith here that 270 is not the maximum possible score, suggesting the flunkee missed more than the Mary and Jane question.
No mention of what mail order “prestigious Boston law school” Mr Dunne (fitting description of his future law career) matriculated, making it difficult to learn just how far down the food chain he was on graduation day. Don’t you know he’s making some Dean very proud right now.
Fitting punishment would be to suggest to Judge Pearson that Mr. Dunne is the real perp who waylaid his pants.
When I took the bar in 1999, I was asked a question about insider trading, and another about a murder if memory serves. I didn’t know I could get out of having to answer these questions simply because I believe both activities are immoral.
Frivolous lawsuit that will probably be thrown out of court ten seconds after a judge gets his hands on it.
Ridiculously high damages request.
Seems to me, exam or not, this guy IS a lawyer.
Just think of the great case for incompetent counsel this guy is going to have on appeal when he loses at trial!
well I thought that a big part of being a lawyer was to set aside your own personal beliefs in furtherance of the law and the best efforts in defending one’s client (within the law).
Seems he failed at this point rather big time.
I’ve always heard that the Massachusetts bar was one of the easier to pass – so easy, it’s nicknamed “Passachusetts.”